Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Sorry Greg - but I just got in. I've been on the road all day. I posted that
other thread in the gym. Then we went out to dinner and I was out with
Rose tonight and just got in. So while I'm tired, I'm awake cause I have
insomnia and should be able to answer your questions or the ones I think
I can answer.

I'll plead ignorance on the scientific facts I don't understand. I said at the
top I'm no match for you in science and you're kicking my ass on points
but i'm the only one who took you on and answered your Biblical questions on plant death, original sin and the fall and on yom so I scored points there
and might score a few more here.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

If you are referring to me in the underlined I challenge you to find a point where I disagree with Scripture.

I'm not saying that you disagree with scripture but it seems if
Spammy likes your position of putting light first it seems like you
are co-existing. An atheist likes what you said, not what I said.

Your ENGLISH translation, particularly the King James, has its own issues. Most English translations are done from the original Hebrew and Greek directly to English. The King James was actually translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, so it went through 2 translations.

Many translations say the same as King James such as RSV and
NIV to name two. Meanings get lost when translating from the original
language in any work of art or historical record but again, if God wanted
it to be 13B years he would have said that instead of 6 days.

Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew way better than you or I believe the earth was created over 6 lengthy time frames, why is this an issue for you?

Again, because that's what my Bible says. Translations like NIV and RSV say the same thing. If God wanted it to be years he would have said years,
not day.

Time has no meaning for a timeless God. That Jewish scholars disagree on Jesus isn't part of THIS discussion, Christians believe the same creation history as Jews. Jesus taught that the Jews had a very good understanding of the Scriptures, they just didn't live them out well.

I told Spammy that God had to put the universe into something, it was
void and w/o form. God put it in time. Time is just not measurement like
Spammy said.

As for science and God, your view is ridiculous. If science discovers truths about the universe these are things God wants us to discover.

There you go again. It's ridiculous. The atheist point of view is science vs God.

Trap, do you have ANY understanding of the scientific method (developed by Christians like Newton, a STAUNCH believer)? Hypotheses are proposed, from them theroies are developed and these theories make predictions. The Big Bang thoery posited several predictions, many of them have been shown to be correct and some are still to be confirmed or denied. The main basis of the Big Bang theory is the Theory of Relativity, which has been proven to a greater degree than accepted laws like Newton's laws of motion.

List a few scientists that take issue with the Big Bang and their published articles in peer reviewed journals for me. Meanwhile, I can show you many more that agree with it. The deniers, Trap, are either uneducated Christians or atheists.

I used a link where a guy said that and you've been arguing it since.
I'll have to check it out but haven't had time.

This is utter nonsense. Agreeing with an atheist is a compromise? Do you agree with atheists that 2 + 2 = 4?

The math is irrelevant here. Were talking creation - science vs scripture. The two don't jive.

Spambot agrees there was a beginning to the universe. He does not agree on the cause.

Yes, but he liked the way you put light being created before the earth
so he said he likes what you said. That's because you're accepting the Bang. Maybe not like him but you're allowing it. I'm hog wash because I'm fighting it according to scripture. He disagrees with me that light came after the 6th day.

By the way, YOU ARE THE ONE LINKING TO AN ATHEIST WEBSITE IN REGARD TO THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG! Try removing that log sir, and you will then be in position to point out and help remove any specks I have.

Do you disagree that the universe began to exist or DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VERY FEW ATHEISTS THAT HOLD TO TO THE STEADY STATE IDEA?

No, it says 6 "yoms." And light came before the earth. Most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1:1 is a summarizing statement that says there was a beginnning and God created everything, then the rest of the chapter goes into a brief description of what he did. After space, time, matter and energy then came light. Light was FIRST of the created objects after the universe was established in which to place these creations. This is scientific as well. The early universe was pure light with no darkness until it had cooled to a point.

Correct. It wasn't a "bang" but the name isn't the idea. It is just a name and you are correct, it is not a good desciprtion. It is simply the coming into existence of everything from nothing we would call natural.

Do you still not understand WHY Hoyle did this initially? The idea of a Creator was abhorrent to the THEN atheist Hoyle. He understood what the Big Bang implied, that a Creator God began the universe. He accepted the Big Bang and went on to say, while becoming a believer in a Creator, that "a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics." Do you not understand how profound this was in converting this atheist into a believer of a Supreme Creator?

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by Greg

Oh, and one more point to Trap, Adam was created on the 6th day. In that 6th day he also existed for some time without Eve and was then put to sleep, had a rib removed, and then Eve was created. I believe all of that. But let me ask you, Adam also named all of the various animals on the earth, do you think he could squeeze all of that into just 24 hours (assuming he did not sleep at all)? Or does it make more sense that the 6th day is more than 24 hours?

On the sixth day of creation, everything was good except that Adam was alone (Genesis 2:18). God decided to make a helper suitable for Adam. This could not be just any helper. It would have to be a creature that would be a good fit or match.

God brought the beasts of the field and birds for Adam to name. Read verse 19. Notice that He did not bring all the animals. He did not bring the sea creatures that He created on Day 5, or the creeping things He created on Day 6. Also, remember that Adam was not trying to give a name to millions of species. The Bible was written before man invented this way of naming living things. Adam probably only had to name groups of birds and animals. These could have been general names like "pigeon," "cow," "dog," or "mole," not special names like "arctic fox" or "pig-nosed softshell turtle." In just an hour, Adam could have named hundreds of birds and animals.

And you never responded to my other question regarding how the first 3 days, or 24 hour periods, were measured if there was no sun, moon and stars until day 4?

I don't know. The Bible says God created the earth in 6 days and then there
was light. We can ask him when we meet him and maybe he'll give us a
glimpse into his infinite universe.

And here's John MacArthur, pastor of a mega church in California saying
the same thing. He has authored tons of books and here's one entitled
BATTLE FOR THE BEGGINNING. Again, he said long birthers are
coinciding with evolutionists. Creation was not a long drawn out thing.
God created the earth. He uses the original Hebrew and explains it
better than anyone. It's over 60 pages but you might want to skim thru
some of it.

The fundamentalist churches I've been in have held this view which
include millions of Christians.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

And here's RC Sproul, another giant amongst fundamental pastors with a
former mega church and President and Chancelor of Dallas Theological Seminary
in Dallas who's a short birther and author of 60 books. Actually he switched from being a long birther like some of the scientists mentioned above. See why.

Paul Steidl, an astronomer, has noted:
[N]o astronomers would ever think of the big bang as the creation event of Genesis. The big bang was invented specifically for the purpose of doing away with the creation event. An astronomer would laugh at the naivety of anyone who chose to equate the two events (1979, 197).
Evolutionist Paul Davies, in a discussion of the big bang, says that this theory of origins “differs greatly in detail from the biblical version.” He then quotes Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University:
What one cannot say is, first, that the Christian doctrine of creation “supports” the Big Bang model, or second, that the Big Bang model “supports” the doctrine of creation (1983, 17-20).

And I just came across that the great reformist John Calvin as well as St Augustine believed in the 24 hr 6-day creation of Genesis.

We are fundamentalists and believe in a literal interpretation of scripture and that it is
inerrant but Greg is right, many in the church do not. Just another of thousands of issues Christians argue over every day.

Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates

Posts

4,492

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

I don't know. The Bible says God created the earth in 6 days and then there
was light

.

Scripture, please.

First off, it says 6 yoms, and once again, if Moses meant long period of time there was one and only one Hebrew available to him at that time, yom.

As for me and evoutionists, I guarantee I can go toe to toe with an evolutionist in a debate better than you or MacArthur.

Besides, anybody who gives more than a minute or two of thought to the ideaS can see these are two separate ideaS. The Big Bang is one, evolution another.

As for RC Sproul, I love the guy and watch him all of the time, but I have two fundamental differences with him. This and also he is a Calvinist, which just does not square with Romans 1:20. If Calvinism is true all non-believers have an excellent excuse in that they were not chosen by God to be given the gift of faith and thus are not responsible and should not be sent to hell.

That said, despite the differences I love the man and his dedication and teaching, and also would never call him a compromiser.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

As someone on this board who is as staunch an anti-organized religion guy as any, there is nothing about the big bang that eliminates a creator. As a matter of fact, from a completely non-secular, philosophical point of view it even lends credence to the idea.
One philosophical proof of god is that this world is nothing but cause and effect relationships. Scientifically going back to the beginning(big bang) one gets to an effect without a known cause. The "original cause" almost HAS TO BE supernatural in nature as it preceded everything.
That one train of thought has converted me from agnostic to deist. I never completely denied the existance of a God, but now I am inclined to believe there is one.

As someone on this board who is as staunch an anti-organized religion guy as any, there is nothing about the big bang that eliminates a creator. As a matter of fact, from a completely non-secular, philosophical point of view it even lends credence to the idea.
One philosophical proof of god is that this world is nothing but cause and effect relationships. Scientifically going back to the beginning(big bang) one gets to an effect without a known cause. The "original cause" almost HAS TO BE supernatural in nature as it preceded everything.
That one train of thought has converted me from agnostic to deist. I never completely denied the existance of a God, but now I am inclined to believe there is one.

Anyone willing to look at the facts at hand with an iota of objectivity and logic, has to in their heart of hearts arrive at the same conclusion. However, no amount of logic and reason are a match for denial.

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)

Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates

Posts

4,492

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by jonboy79

As someone on this board who is as staunch an anti-organized religion guy as any, there is nothing about the big bang that eliminates a creator. As a matter of fact, from a completely non-secular, philosophical point of view it even lends credence to the idea.
One philosophical proof of god is that this world is nothing but cause and effect relationships. Scientifically going back to the beginning(big bang) one gets to an effect without a known cause. The "original cause" almost HAS TO BE supernatural in nature as it preceded everything.
That one train of thought has converted me from agnostic to deist. I never completely denied the existance of a God, but now I am inclined to believe there is one.

You have joined many scientists in this field.

Next, investigate the historocity of the New testament documents, doing so has converted a number of atheists like Lee Stroble originally setting out to prove them false.

Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates

Posts

4,492

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

It is an established scientific theory (a theory being an established and tested concept that is supported by evidence. There are very few "facts" involved in higher science) that the big bang theory was not only the phenomenon that created our universe, but also that time itself did not exist prior to the big bang. If time didn't exist before the bang, then logically the first event in the history of the universe is the big bang. It is the start point for the universe.

Just a point, but the Big Bang did not create anything, it is a description (and a poor one) of how the universe began. The cause, or Cause, is not the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the event, not the cause.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

First off, it says 6 yoms, and once again, if Moses meant long period of time there was one and only one Hebrew available to him at that time, yom.

Again, I mentioned about 100 other places in scripture where it is used as a 24-hr period so why is
Genesis the exception. Context is everything and
MacArthur did a better job of anyone explaining things in the original language. Pastors have to learn them
in seminary training. My brother's Bible is in the original language so when he's preaching he says the Hebrew word for this is that and the Greek word for that is this and so on. .

As for me and evolutionists, I guarantee I can go toe to toe with an evolutionist in a debate better than you or MacArthur.

I love your humility-lol.

Besides, anybody who gives more than a minute or two of thought to the ideaS can see these are two separate ideaS. The Big Bang is one, evolution another.

As for RC Sproul, I love the guy and watch him all of the time, but I have two fundamental differences with him. This and also he is a Calvinist, which just does not square with Romans 1:20. If Calvinism is true all non-believers have an excellent excuse in that they were not chosen by God to be given the gift of faith and thus are not responsible and should not be sent to hell.

Choice is another issue altogher. I don't agree with
all 5 points in TULIP - just the T, I and P. I always
thought you were Armenian-sp. I'm with him on
U and L. When Jesus said I chose you he usually spoke
to small groups of people. He didn't use that word on
the sermon on the mount in front of 5,000 people He
used it on the disciples when he chose them.

That said, despite the differences I love the man and his dedication and teaching, and also would never call him a compromiser.

A lot of ministers change doctrinal positions over a career. Sproul is also a partial preterist who believes the tribulation already occurred and Nero was the anti-Christ.

He's my brother's hero and when everyone else is
listening to music on their iPod, he's listening to
RC Sproul.

----------------------------------------------------------
Sproul also mentions Christ's geneology back to
Adam. Thats about 20 generations which fit nicely
into the short bith time frame. The gaps make it
impossible to fit that in.

If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (pp. 121–122)

‘A big stretch’! Yes, it would be a big stretch to take the genealogies back just 10,000 years, let alone one puny million. Even then we would be nowhere near 4.6 billion years. RC Sproul makes it clear from this statement that he believes in a young earth. (And there is a good biblical case that the genealogies are complete and without gaps.2)

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

And speaking of Adam, the Bible tells us that he was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Your doing exactly what I said in my previous post, equivocating the word evolution. Taking natural selection(genotype+environment =phenotype) calling it evolution, and using examples of it as if it has explained the formation of organisms and the complex functions therein.

I never stated in my examples that evolution explains the formation of new organisms. What I have said is that clearly n.s. has led to the evolution within species. Proving evolution has produced a new species has yet to be done in an empirical manner and if your criticism is that it can't be done in a lab, then you will probably always be a creationist.

The thing about the fossil record and evolution is, it's not only a matter of lacking preserved transitional ancestors. The main problem is it has preserved the exact opposite of what evolution suggests. The fossil record displays periods of sudden extinction, followed by stasis in species.

This is false. Just in hominids alone there is abundant fossil evidence to strongly suggest, yet not prove, man evolved from lower forms of hominids. You will most certainly disagree and to walk through the fossil record here would simply be too great of a task. I will say though that the fossil record showing what we see as precursers to what makes a hominid a Homo Sapian is vast and much more convincing than a fossil record showing Homo Sapian as static and an original form. In other words, there is more evidence of man as an organism evolving from a lower species than man just being created. Creationists can conveniently hide behind the difficulties in collecting fossils millions of years old. The conditions have to be nearly perfect to preserve such a bone and then even more unlikely, someone has to find it. Yet, the fossil record is quite rich with million year old samples of brain capacities, thumb positioning, pelvic angles and so on. Truthfully I like that record more than yours.

Its alleged vision slowly evolved through an adaptive process, driven by necessity to survive and reproduce. Since macromutations are rejected by science, micromutions are believed to be the creators behind new functions. But what necessary advantage in progeny would 10% of an eye include while in the early stages? Afterall when you Consider the amount of neural uniformity required for sight, 10% of an eye would not equate to 10% vision.

This is an old anti-evolution argument that sounds appealing on the surface but washes out with little effort. 10% of an eye would certainly distinguish between light and dark. In fact, any genetic anomaly that created a photo-sensitive cell would be a distinct advantage for any sea-born cluster of cells leading it to warmth, food and energy sources. There are many examples of "eyes" in life today that demonstrate this evolution. To think the only adaptive advantage of an eye is for it to see like ours does today is the epitome of human-centric thinking. Gnats, mollusks, dogs etc. Just the fact that the human eye is so falliable should either lead one to understand its developing evolution better or lead one to wondering how many beers your almighty was drinking on whatever day it was when he thought it would be cool to be able to see. Certainly one wouldn't intend to create such a poorly performing object.

Again, I don't. And again, natural selection does not account for the sequence of events that allegedly turned non-livig chemicals into self-replicating organisms which eventually lead to the human mind.

So we should throw in the towel and look to the heavens? Religion is easy and it is made conveniently easier with the ambiguity of your only source; a 2000+ year old tome. Honestly, I think atheists are as ignorant as people who live their life by the bible. Just as there is no proof for god there is also no proof against god. what I do know though that if this god is as powerful as you claim he is he certainly did screw a lot of things up in his work.

In the end I trust what fossil record we do have as well as the abundant anecdotal evidence for evolution vs. the idea that a "creator' with the ability to create life would be so horrendous at doing it that we would have disease, mutations, inefficiencies and so on. I am sure there is a biblical quote somewhere that explains his inadequacies as a creator

Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates

Posts

4,492

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

A lot of ministers change doctrinal positions over a career. Sproul is also a partial preterist who believes the tribulation already occurred and Nero was the anti-Christ.

He's my brother's hero and when everyone else is
listening to music on their iPod, he's listening to
RC Sproul.

----------------------------------------------------------
Sproul also mentions Christ's geneology back to
Adam. Thats about 20 generations which fit nicely
into the short bith time frame. The gaps make it
impossible to fit that in.

If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (pp. 121–122)

‘A big stretch’! Yes, it would be a big stretch to take the genealogies back just 10,000 years, let alone one puny million. Even then we would be nowhere near 4.6 billion years. RC Sproul makes it clear from this statement that he believes in a young earth. (And there is a good biblical case that the genealogies are complete and without gaps.2)

Fine, even if I agree, which I don't (check out Moses history, his grandfather [if we use those genealogies as you are] had thousands of descendants in the Exodus - he and his kids were very busy to get that many descendants in such a short time).

Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates

Posts

4,492

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

And speaking of Adam, the Bible tells us that he was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.

I don't believe Adam was created millions or billions of years ago, it was thousands. As few as 6,000 but more than likely 30,000 to 50,000.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Well, I thought you meant the days in Genesis were like millions of years or so. You can fit the 20 generations in about 6.000 years
but not 30,000-50,000, I think.

According to the Book of Genesis, Abraham was born 292 years after the Flood. The Bible says Noah died 350 years after the Flood, so they both lived at the same time.

According to the Bible, Moses was the grandson of Kohath, who was alive at the time of the migration from Canaan and lived 133 years, while his son Amran lived 137 years. At the extremes of biological possibility, and assuming the patriarchs really lived to improbably great ages, Moses was born sometime between 15 years and 270 years after the arrival in Egypt and, living to the age of 120 years, died between 135 and 390 years after the arrival. On these calculations, Moses was born between about 1850 and 1600 BCE, and died between about 1730 and 1480 BCE.

Based on these genealogies, Moses was born between about 150 and 400 years after the death of Noah.

In between Abraham and Moses were Jacob and Joseph, all key players of that era, so yea, there was a lot of sexual activity going on by the time of the exodus and they carried Joseph's reamins to the promise land with them where they still are. That's what happens when the church doesn't pay for contraceptives-lol.

Jacob had at least, what 7 sons? After Cain and Able God told Adam and Eve to multiply the
earth and they took him literally having 33 sons and 23 daughters. When the outcasted
Cain married about 20 years after being thrown into the wilderness, the girl had to be his sister.
Adam lived 930 years so he saw the earth multiplied. Same as Noah.

God also told Noah to multiple the earth after the flood which his family did and he lived long like Adam
and saw the earth multiplied. Nimrod is a great grand son, I think. These people
literally and physically took God's command to heart. Hell, King Solomon had 500 wives and he
consumated everyone one of the marriages and you know his dad, King David was no slouch in
the horny dept with Bethsheba and many others.